Case #13:

LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., as the second nominee of CITIZENS BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION
(CIBAC), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.

FACTS:
 The Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) through its President Emmanuel Joel J.
Villanueva, submitted a list of five nominees from which its representatives would be chosen
should CIBAC obtain the required number of qualifying votes in which 2nd nominee is
Petitioner Luis K. Lokin Jr.
 CIBAC through Villanueva filed a certificate of nomination substitution and amendment of
the list of nominees prior to the elections. Removing the petitioner from the list of nominees
and added Armi Jane R. Borje.
 CIBAC through its counsel filed with the COMELEC en banc a motion seeking the
proclamation of Lokin as its second nominee.
 Villanueva filed a petition to confirm the certificate of nomination, substitution and
amendment of the list of nominees of CIBAC.
 July 6, 2007, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8219 wherby it resolved to set the matter
pertaining to the validity of the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang
and the substitution of Borje for proper disposition and hearing.
 Ricardo de los Santos, Secretary General of CIBAC informed Roberto Nazareno, Secreatry
General of House of Representatives of the promulgation of NBC Resolution No. 07072 and
requested Lokin be formally sworn in by Speaker Jose De Venecia Jr. To eneable him to
assume office. Nazareno in response states he was notified of the pendency of E.M. 07-054.
 COMELEC resolved E.M. 07-054 granting the withdrawal of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and
substitution of Borje . Comelec en banc proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the official 2 nd
nomineed of CIBAC. Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office.

ISSUES:
 Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over the controversy.
 Whether or not Lokin is guilty of forum shopping
 Whether or not Sec. 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is unconstitutional and violates the Party-List
System Act.
 Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in approving the withdrawal of the nominees of CIBAC and allowing
the amendment of the list of nominees of CIBAC without any basis in fact or law and after
the close of the polls and in ruling on the matters that were intra-corporate in nature.

HELD:
 The Court has jurisdiction over the case.

The COMELEC posits that once the proclamation of the winning party-list organization has
been done and its nominee has assumed office, any question relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the candidates to the House of Representatives falls under the jurisdiction of the
HRET pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, Lokin should raise the
question he poses herein either in an election protest or in a special civil action for quo
warranto in the HRET, not in a special civil action for certiorari in this Court.

The controversy involving Lokin is neither an election protest nor an action for quo warranto, for
it concerns a very peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be seated as the second nominee
of CIBAC. Although an election protest may properly be available to one party-list organization
seeking to unseat another party-list organization to determine which between the defeated and the
winning party-list organizations actually obtained the majority of the legal votes, Lokin’s case is
not one in which a nominee of a particular party-list organization thereby wants to unseat another
nominee of the same party-list organization. Neither does an action for quo warranto lie,
considering that the case does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales to the
Republic of the Philippines, or some other cause of disqualification for her.

Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for certiorari against the COMELEC to seek
the review of the September 14, 2007 resolution of the COMELEC in accordance with Section 7
of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption of office by
Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, which provides for the review of the judgments, final orders or resolutions of the
COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. As Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by a petition
for certiorari in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the Supreme Court within a limited period
of 30 days. Undoubtedly, the Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokin’s petitions
for certiorari and for mandamus against the COMELEC.

 Petitioner is not guilty of forum shopping.

The mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not necessarily constitute forum
shopping. The test is whether the several actions filed involve the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances.22 The actions must also raise identical causes of action, subject
matter, and issues.23 Elsewise stated, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis
pendentia are present, or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other.

Lokin has filed the petition for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to proclaim him as the
second nominee of CIBAC upon the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-72 (announcing
CIBAC’s entitlement to an additional seat in the House of Representatives), and to strike down the
provision in NBC Resolution No. 07-60 and NBC Resolution No. 07-72 holding in abeyance "all
proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending
disputes shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases." He has
insisted that the COMELEC had the ministerial duty to proclaim him due to his being CIBAC’s
second nominee; and that the COMELEC had no authority to exercise discretion and to suspend or
defer the proclamation of winning party-list organizations with pending disputes.

On the other hand, Lokin has resorted to the petition for certiorari to assail the September 14, 2007
resolution of the COMELEC (approving the withdrawal of the nomination of Lokin, Tugna and
Galang and the substitution by Cruz-Gonzales as the second nominee and Borje as the third
nominee); and to challenge the validity of Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804, the COMELEC’s
basis for allowing CIBAC’s withdrawal of Lokin’s nomination.

Applying the test for forum shopping, the consecutive filing of the action for certiorari and the
action for mandamus did not violate the rule against forum shopping even if the actions involved
the same parties, because they were based on different causes of action and the reliefs they sought
were different.

 Invalidity of Sec. 13 of Resolution No. 7804

The rules and regulations adopted and promulgated must not, however, subvert or be contrary to
existing statutes. The function of promulgating IRRs may be legitimately exercised only for the
purpose of carrying out the provisions of a law. The power of administrative agencies is confined
to implementing the law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulation
cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment. It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the
law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its
implementation. Indeed, administrative or executive acts shall be valid only when they are not
contrary to the laws or the Constitution.27
To be valid, therefore, the administrative IRRs must comply with the following requisites to be
valid:28

1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislature;

2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislature;

3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; and

4. It must be reasonable.

The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7804 pursuant to its powers under the Constitution, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881, and the Party-List System Act. 31 Hence, the COMELEC met the first
requisite.

The COMELEC also met the third requisite. There is no question that Resolution No. 7804
underwent the procedural necessities of publication and dissemination in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in the resolution itself.

Whether Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 was valid or not is thus to be tested on the basis of
whether the second and fourth requisites were met. It is in this respect that the challenge of Lokin
against Section 13 succeeds.

As earlier said, the delegated authority must be properly exercised. This simply means that the
resulting IRRs must not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the limits of the authority conferred.
It is basic that an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress, 32 for administrative
IRRs are solely intended to carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law. The administrative
agency issuing the IRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions of the law it administers
and enforces, and cannot engraft additional non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by
the Legislature.

 Considering that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 – to the extent that it allows the party-list
organization to withdraw its nomination already submitted to the COMELEC – was invalid,
CIBAC’s withdrawal of its nomination of Lokin and the others and its substitution of them
with new nominees were also invalid and ineffectual. It is clear enough that any substitution
of Lokin and the others could only be for any of the grounds expressly stated in Section 8 of
R.A. No. 7941. Resultantly, the COMELEC’s approval of CIBAC’s petition of withdrawal of
the nominations and its recognition of CIBAC’s substitution, both through its assailed
September 14, 2007 resolution, should be struck down for lack of legal basis. Thereby, the
COMELEC acted without jurisdiction, having relied on the invalidly issued Section 13 of
Resolution No. 7804 to support its action.

Section 13 of the Resolution No. 7804 invalid and of no effect to the extent that it authorizes
a party-list organization to withdraw its nomination of a nominee once it has submitted the
nomination to the Commission on Elections.